Rubio: We need an immigration-reform plan that recognizes reality

posted at 12:01 pm on January 28, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Tomorrow, Barack Obama will launch his immigration-reform effort with a speech in Las Vegas. Marco Rubio beats him to it by publishing a column in today’s Las Vegas Review-Journal explaining the bipartisan compromise that he helped to shape. To continue to do nothing in a standoff, Rubio explains, would perpetuate the current de facto “amnesty” that has been in place for years, a fact that should worry both sides of the debate:

Both sides should want this kind of common-sense reform. To those concerned about illegal immigration, what we have now is de facto amnesty. To those looking to help the undocumented, families will continue being separated by deportations as long as politicians keep bickering and trying to outdo each other.

Mostly, though, Rubio wants to bolster support from his own side, while getting ahead of Obama and keeping the Republicans in play on the solution. Rubio argues today that the plan represents an improvement over past proposals by forcing illegal immigrants to go to the back of the line and to provide substantial effort to remain in the country. And that won’t come through a special process, but through a reformed immigration process that works the same for everyone:

It’s not a good idea to have millions of people permanently trapped in an immigration status that keeps them forever at a distance from our society. Therefore, once our new enforcement measures are certifiably in place, they should be allowed to apply for permanent status – not through a special pathway, but through the new and modernized legal immigration process we envision. They will have to wait behind everyone who applied before them legally. And when their turn comes up, they will have to meet the conditions of the visa they apply for.

In the past, efforts to accommodate the undocumented have failed because the enforcement measures were never implemented. That’s why this option to apply for a green card and get in the back of the line should not be made available until it is certified that significant progress has been made on enforcement of our immigration laws.

Will Rubio’s popularity with Tea Party Republicans help to quell opposition to bipartisan reform? Matt Lewis notes that Rubio’s involvement forced the other members of the Gang of Eight to move to the right on border enforcement and visa reform, but that the test will be whether Republicans will accept a compromise that moves this issue off the table:

It’s one thing for Republicans to say they want to reform immigration policy, but the real test will be how they respond to the notion that a deal might actually pass.

Some will likely conclude that any bipartisan deal means our side is being “played.” This, of course, is a catch-22 — sort of like Groucho Marx’s line about not wanting to belong to any club that would accept him as a member.

No one likes having to cut deals, but voters in their less-than-infinite wisdom brought back split government to Washington, and that’s the only way that we will resolve this issue with any conservative input over the next four years. We’ll see if the GOP puts its “prudence” strategy to work in this case, or lets Rubio twist in the wind.

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

If you don’t crack down on businesses who hire them it doesn’t matter. No republican has really been willing to do that.

tomas on January 28, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Under existing law, it’s too hard to prosecute those cases. Most illegal immigrant labor is short-term. So long as the person presents a fake ID to complete the I-9, he’s good for at least 6-9 months before ICE tells the employer there’s a problem.

You can whine all you want, but its a done deal. If its bipartisan, it’ll pass DC. I look at the future. We don’t want the hispanics to go the way of the blacks. Its time to broaden the tent. Wonder why GWB got much more hispanic votes than McCain and Romney? Cos he was perceived as a SoCon. Our next Preezy nominee should be a fusion of fisc con, socon and defense con. But I see none on the horizon, which would probably mean a loss, again.

tommy71 on January 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM

This is not about race, it is about math and principle.

I volunteered to help immigrants study for their citizenship and these illegals get the valet parking treatment?

You try the game in reverse go to mexico and work illegally and find out what their “morals” are.

If you don’t crack down on businesses who hire them it doesn’t matter. No republican has really been willing to do that.

tomas on January 28, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Enforcement is the feral govenrment’s responsibility, not businesses’. It is total BS to try and put the onus on business (who have to fill out tons of paperwork and file SS and tax forms, to begin with). Heck, Barky and his America-hating junta sued Arizona declaring that the STATE was not allowed to enforce existing feral law.

The job of interior enforcement lies with the feral government and they are the ones who need to do their jobs and carry it out – with help from state governments if the feral government is falling down on the job. But to demonize businesses is the wrong way to go and it is just wrong. We force hospitals and schools and governments to knowingly service illegals and then they want to jail business owners because the authorities refuse to deport people who have to be deported? I don’t think so.

After the election it is hard to find anything to be happy about since Obama will be around for what will seem like another million years so it’s the little things I have to be happy about. And Sen. Rubio raining on Obama’s parade tomorrow counts.

You don’t honestly think that it is just Republican donors pulling this crap do you? That’s why The Won didn’t do anything about it in his first term. Since he can’t run again he either doesn’t give a flip or has found some quid pro quo to offer his donors.

Please, guys, get outraged, talk more about how Hispanics are shiftless, welfare-stealing criminals and make opposition to the bill that emerges a litmus test for the ’16 nominee. You could guarantee us the White House for a generation.

I wonder how many U.S. citizen anchor babies reach voting age every year.

urban elitist on January 28, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Agreed, could you imagine someone using terms such as “typical white person”, “rural folks clinging to their guns and Bibles”, or “he has no negro dialect unless he wants to have one”?

I mean you would have to be one serious bigot-supporting ahole to vote for someone like that.

You can whine all you want, but its a done deal. If its bipartisan, it’ll pass DC. I look at the future. We don’t want the hispanics to go the way of the blacks. Its time to broaden the tent. Wonder why GWB got much more hispanic votes than McCain and Romney? Cos he was perceived as a SoCon. Our next Preezy nominee should be a fusion of fisc con, socon and defense con. But I see none on the horizon, which would probably mean a loss, again.

tommy71 on January 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM

I don’t disagree. The optics problem we have with immigration is that our legal immigration system is a national disgrace. It’s inefficient, heartless, and encourages people to engage in all kinds of mischief to work around it. Thus, every time a Republican complains about how “these Mexicans don’t obey the law,” a large part of the Hispanic community rejoinds by saying “those laws are unworthy of respect.”

So I think the key is, we need to come up with an immigration solution that lets immigrants get jobs here without a path to citizenship, and that dries up the black market for illegal immigrant labor. That’ll significantly ease the pressure on our country without telling Hispanic voters that we hate them (which we don’t).

That’s the kind of thing I want to hear more of: frankly racist comments that make fun of Hispanics’ religion, too (I thought you conservatives were all with the Pope on the birth control thing).

Make fun? I had no idea that US Census data was racist. Why exactly are Latinos are a growing demographic in this country? Because while White Women were having 60 children per 1,000 women, Latinos were having 120 children.

We do indeed have ideas, like tolerance and compassion, and the belief that the United States should be a land of opportunity even for poor people with brown skins. We also have politics, and if our ideology attracts key demographic groups, it’s a win-win.

urban elitist on January 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Libtards are tolerant and compassionate tof all things, except the following: Black Republicans, Latino Republicans, Christians, religion, God, Israel, Israelis, smokers, whites who have families with more than one child, SUV drivers, gun-owners and everybody that holds a differing viewpoint.

But, hey, “congrats” on winning due to poor families having 8-10 children and living on the dole for support.

Please, guys, get outraged, talk more about how Hispanics are shiftless, welfare-stealing criminals and make opposition to the bill that emerges a litmus test for the ’16 nominee. You could guarantee us the White House for a generation.

I wonder how many U.S. citizen anchor babies reach voting age every year.

urban elitist on January 28, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Agreed, could you imagine someone using terms such as “typical white person”, “rural folks clinging to their guns and Bibles”, or “he has no negr0 dialect unless he wants to have one”?

I mean you would have to be one serious bigot-supporting ahole to vote for someone like that.

First, there is no need for H-1B workers. Microsoft and other big tech industries want cheap labor just like other employers. If there was a “need” for more H-1B workers, tech would not block every meaningful reform which would protect American workers in the tech fields.

Second, as for this “plan” by Rubio, it is a joke that shows little more than his wish to show he can be a national player. It offers no real solutions, but instead grants amnesty to one side and screws over future American workers on the other by increasing guest worker programs even more…all this in the middle of 4 years with an unemployment rate at or near 8%.

Third, this “de facto” amnesty line that Rubio is peddaling is a cop out. De fact amnesty comes from Executive branch officials who find it more politically expedient to pander to groups that scream for amnesty and let illegal aliens remain in the United States (and give them things like DACA) rather than enforce existing laws. It also occurs because of members of Congress (like Rubio) who find it more politically expedient to let things like DACA and ICE’s refusal to deport so called “non-criminal” aliens happen rather than attempt to enact legislation to reign in those kinds of actions. You see almost no meaningful statements by Republicans when blatantly unconstitutional measures are taken on this issue by the Executive Branch. There was a time when Congress actually cared about the laws it passed.

And finally Ed,

the test will be whether Republicans will accept a compromise that moves this issue off the table

How does this plan do that? Are you saying that it moves immigration off the table before the Midterm elections or before the election in 4 years b/c magically a larger percentage of Latinos will now vote for a group that cares more about pandering than about principals? What this “plan” does is guarantee that immigration will be an issue in the midterms and spells problems for Republicans from both the left and the right. Wasn’t amnesty supposed to take the issue off the table in 1986 also? How is this going to stop a new set of illegal aliens from entering the country and having to go through this yet again? What we need is to get these people out of their echo chambers with Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, and Ed Gillespie and start thinking logically instead.

Don’t fool yourself. Bill Gates is lying. We don’t need any more H1-b visas either.
LoganSix on January 28, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Jobs are tight in Silicon Valley high end electronics where my family member is an EE. He drives 100 miles one way to hold a job with a pay cut. But, head hunters love the visa boys. Yep, less trouble with the disposable EE’s

We must attain operational control of our borders

We already have the laws, but they involve deporting the bums we catch. This would interfere with the program: Get them in. Create victims. Demand they be rescued from breaking into our nation

Sadly, our immigration system is broken, and our dysfunctional Congress has been unable to put in place a new legal immigration system that honors our heritage as both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws

It isn’t broken. It is not being enacted. Anymore.

It’s not a good idea to have millions of people permanently trapped in an immigration status that keeps them forever at a distance from our society.

They aren’t trapped. They volunteered

Therefore, once our new enforcement measures are certifiably in place, they should be allowed to apply for permanent status – not through a special pathway, but through the new and modernized legal immigration process we envision. They will have to wait behind everyone who applied before them legally

If they get permanent status, they have been given amnesty from prosecution.
The end run is being staged now. The MSM is already talking about a bill which even conservatives love. McCain has set it up to fast track. They hope to sneak a vote in the House with zero warning. Note how Boehner is backing into the shadows. It is going to be fast and ugly. Get ready to scream bloody murder.

Rubio is placing himself as pro immigration, well ahead of the next presidential. You can save your donations to Rubio, if you don’t want amnesty.

IMHO they are not trying to bring in Tea Party with Rubio’s ‘confessions of the heart’. They are attempting to build a new coalition for the next Presidential election, minus Tea Party. Maybe they could get Dick Armey to run another Tea Party front group.

I don’t disagree. The optics problem we have with immigration is that our legal immigration system is a national disgrace. It’s inefficient, heartless, and encourages people to engage in all kinds of mischief to work around it. Thus, every time a Republican complains about how “these Mexicans don’t obey the law,” a large part of the Hispanic community rejoinds by saying “those laws are unworthy of respect.”

So I think the key is, we need to come up with an immigration solution that lets immigrants get jobs here without a path to citizenship, and that dries up the black market for illegal immigrant labor. That’ll significantly ease the pressure on our country without telling Hispanic voters that we hate them (which we don’t).

Outlander on January 28, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Hey that sounds like a fun game….

do I get to play too?

I think an exercise in regulatory fiat attacking coal companies is an unjust law…can I or an organization of like minded individuals forming a body of people say a corporation engage in “only following laws worthy of respect” or is this just reserved for Democrats and their new celebrity victim classes?

Be like the ‘best Americans” engage in tax and identity fraud, get aid, work under the table and demand that the United States bow to your culture or RACIST!

After the election it is hard to find anything to be happy about since Obama will be around for what will seem like another million years so it’s the little things I have to be happy about. And Sen. Rubio raining on Obama’s parade tomorrow counts.

Cindy Munford on January 28, 2013 at 1:09 PM

I can’t find any happiness in the fact that Rubio wants to announce his pathway to destruction before Obama does.

Make fun? I had no idea that US Census data was racist. Why exactly are Latinos are a growing demographic in this country? Because while White Women were having 60 children per 1,000 women, Latinos were having 120 children.

I think it was the phrase “they breed like rabbits” that caught my eye. Does make you sound a little like you consider Hispanics to be little more than dumb copulating animals.

This libtard, by the was married in the Catholic Church and send his kids to Catjolic schools, one for eight years and on for 12. We’re not pleased with the Pope and his reactionary minions, but but we’re on speaking terms.

Libtards are tolerant and compassionate tof all things, except the following: Black Republicans, Latino Republicans, Christians, religion, God, Israel, Israelis, smokers, whites who have families with more than one child, SUV drivers, gun-owners and everybody that holds a differing viewpoint.

But, hey, “congrats” on winning due to poor families having 8-10 children and living on the dole for support.

sentinelrules on January 28, 2013 at 1:12 PM

There we go. Another round of racism. As to your list, disagreeing with someone is not the same as not tolerating them.

It’s funny when Conservatives play the victim card.

Agreed, could you imagine someone using terms such as “typical white person”, “rural folks clinging to their guns and Bibles”, or “he has no negr0 dialect unless he wants to have one”?

I mean you would have to be one serious bigot-supporting ahole to vote for someone like that.

Bishop on January 28, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Are you saying that rural Americans aren’t extremely fond of their guns and bibles?

“No Negro dialect” is certainly an unfortunate phrase, but it is accurate I’m not sure that observing a fact counts a racist.

Hoping your honeymoon is a good memory. Montreal has that effect on most!

I think at some point, the U.S. is gonna have to bite the bullet on a VAT. There was alot of sturm und drang when we implemented the (temporary)GST, but it helped right the books.

Even with our high taxation though it’s gonna be a tough slog going forward as Health Care costs eat up our tax dollars. Health care costs are projected to account for 60% of the Ontario provincial budget by 2050 (They are at about 40% now).

But I am glad that we have resonable immigration and refugee policies up here. I only hope that your’s will get straightened out before it’s too late.

I think the key is, we need to come up with an immigration solution that lets immigrants get jobs here without a path to citizenship, and that dries up the black market for illegal immigrant labor. That’ll significantly ease the pressure on our country without telling Hispanic voters that we hate them (which we don’t).

Outlander on January 28, 2013 at 1:12 PM

If telling Hispanics that you don’t hate them is your goal, allowing legal work status with no possibility of eventual citizenship isn’t going to help your cause. What you’re offering is nothing more than the prospect of being a member of a permanent underclass — not very respectful.

If telling Hispanics that you don’t hate them is your goal, allowing legal work status with no possibility of eventual citizenship isn’t going to help your cause. What you’re offering is nothing more than the prospect of being a member of a permanent underclass — not very respectful.

cam2 on January 28, 2013 at 1:46 PM

right we should acede to their demands and adopt Spanish as our language and run on changing NASA’s Mission from “Muslim outreach” to “Hispanic Outreach”….

//eyeroll

I will admit the moral imperative you ascribe to this issue when Mexico allows the Guatemalan people to just walk right in….

There are a number of the same Senators who, back in the 80’s, promised to enforce the borders for the LAST amnesty under Reagan. John McCain is one of those. That was a lie as shown by the same Congresscritters of Incumbistan not doing what they said they would do.

Now for those illegals who come here to work, how about a ‘pathway to less than minimum wage jobs’ for which they can apply?

Heck, how about doing that for citizens, while you are at it?

If they wanted to become citizens they would support the lawful method and go home and apply. You want a Nation of laws, not of men? Then uphold the law even when the tear-jerking, bleeding hearts tell you its mean to do so: that is when it is NECESSARY to do so and a crime to our own SOCIETY when you do not. If such people faced tyrants and imprisonment due to their religious beliefs or their politics, they could seek asylum. We grant asylum to such people… or used to at any rate, don’t ask me about the current Leftist standards for that. If such people can’t support the law, don’t face tyranny at home and just want a freebie… well, hey, I’d like a discount AR from the DoJ, too, you know what I mean?

Border enforcement before all else.

A path to sub-minimum wage jobs, and not JUST for foreigners but our own citizens as well. Deny work to those willing to do it for less than a ‘living wage’ and yet enough they can live on is cruelty and a mockery of liberty and a denigration of freedom. If you can live on less than a ‘living wage’ then the ‘living wage’ is set too damn high. Going for lower pay is not going for lower expectations, just surviving to find a way to get to those expectations and not becoming a slave to government in the process.

Having said that, despite his rhetorical leadership on the issue, Rubio is merely one of the senate players involved in the so-called “Gang of Eight.” In that capacity, he has, no doubt, pushed the framework in a conservative direction. But he’s one of eight senators charged with crafting the framework of a deal.

Gang of Eight. Where has that been heard before? Rubio has joined the Club

Levin is one of the heroes. Because of him, I am reading on Rousseau, Marx and the various ideologues and their alternate versions of ‘rights’. Levin sounded the warning with Ameritopia. Wikipedia has a decent summary on Rousseau. Check Marx’s ‘On the Jewish Question’ (see Wiki) to understand those who think Judaism and Christianity promote individual liberty (i.e. selfishness) which obstructs the collective. Rousseau, hater of private property, was the great inspiration of the Reign of Terror in France. We are in a battle against a new Reign of Terror.

Rubio is saying that for the good of the collective, we must ignore one body of law, install preferential law, and give no compensation to those who obeyed the old law, even if the general public disagrees, in a republic where law is enacted by elected legislators. Robespierre would approve

After the election it is hard to find anything to be happy about since Obama will be around for what will seem like another million years so it’s the little things I have to be happy about. And Sen. Rubio raining on Obama’s parade tomorrow counts.

Cindy Munford on January 28, 2013 at 1:09 PM

I find the fact that Rubio is trying to grab as much credit for this very amusing, especially the Las Vegas Review editorial. If we’re going to get comprehensive immigration reform, let Rubio get all the credit for it. (One thing that Barry did was undermine Rubio’s Dream Act compromise last year in order to undermine Rubio’s VP campaign.)

You can whine all you want, but its a done deal. If its bipartisan, it’ll pass DC. I look at the future. We don’t want the hispanics to go the way of the blacks. Its time to broaden the tent. Wonder why GWB got much more hispanic votes than McCain and Romney? Cos he was perceived as a SoCon. Our next Preezy nominee should be a fusion of fisc con, socon and defense con. But I see none on the horizon, which would probably mean a loss, again.

tommy71 on January 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Not really… Bush got a larger share of Latino votes because he had an understanding of the Latino culture, promised immigration reform, and was good on education.

Please, guys, get outraged, talk more about how Hispanics are shiftless, welfare-stealing criminals and make opposition to the bill that emerges a litmus test for the ’16 nominee. You could guarantee us the White House for a generation.

I wonder how many U.S. citizen anchor babies reach voting age every year.

urban elitist on January 28, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Umm.. If anyone ends up playing the anti-immigrant card, it is going to be Krispy Kreme in a desperate ploy to stay relevant once his campaign begins tanking. It’ll be hilarious to watch the leftists whining as their new hero tries to go to the right of Rubio and Ryan on this issue.

And this isn’t going to be an issue in 2016 because Team Rubio and Team Ryan have declared a detente on this.

Illinidiva, you’re just plain wrong. Firstly, can you admit that GWB was perceived as a SoCon compared to McCain and Romney? Secondly, he knew bout Latino culture? Lol, so should every Preezy candidate. Didn’t happen with McCain or Romney, did it?

If history is any indication, this will be long on amnesty (including chain migration) and short on enforcement.

With all the squishes in the GOP: Rubio, McCain, Miss Lucy, Dreamboat (aka Paul Ryan), Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy, McConnell, etc., etc., etc., we might as well abandon the GOP and start a third party. What earthly good is the GOPe doing any of us? What good was winning the House in 2010?

Ring the traitors phones off the hooks.
Fax them out of fax paper.
Force them to turn off their phones once more, force them to disconnect the fax machines. Force them out in the open with the treason.

You can whine all you want, but its a done deal. If its bipartisan, it’ll pass DC. I look at the future. We don’t want the hispanics to go the way of the blacks. Its time to broaden the tent. Wonder why GWB got much more hispanic votes than McCain and Romney? Cos he was perceived as a SoCon. Our next Preezy nominee should be a fusion of fisc con, socon and defense con. But I see none on the horizon, which would probably mean a loss, again.

tommy71 on January 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Tommy, what you have missed is that Hispanics have already gone the way of blacks. Their vote for Reagan in 1984 (two years before the 1986 amnesty) was the high water vote. We passed the amnesty and the percentage of Hispanic Democratic vote soared in 1988 with Michael F#king Ducakis as the Democratic nominee.

The illegals who become citizens as a result of this amnesty will be the same as 80+ percent of the blacks and vote for whoever promises the most “free stuff.”

Oh…brother. Well maybe we can all just wait until the next time the democrats get the house, senate and white house and all the illegal immigrants in the country can get immediate citizenship without getting to the back of the line, without learning English, without paying back taxes, without paying fines, without more border control, without a better visa system….etc….etc….

So we’ve learned nothing from the last four years of media coverage, then?

Here’s how this plays out: No matter what Republicans do–even if they deliver a 100% vote in favor of a Republican-drafted bill for full and immediate amnesty–Democrats will get ALL of the credit. Oh, we might hear how Democrats won over those hardhearted Republicans. Or we might hear how Republicans only voted for such a thing to win over Hispanic voters (with the obligatory “but all Republicans still hate all non-white people” thrown in, of course). But Democrats will get ALL of the credit–for pushing the issue to the forefront, for not letting Republicans weasel out of fixing the broken system…for anything “good” that could possibly be touted on news shows or celebrated in 140 characters on Twitter.

If Republicans honestly thought this was the right thing to do–if this were something like ending slavery (which we get no credit for) or passing the Civil Rights Act (which we get no credit for)…something that was clearly just the right thing to do, it would be different. But this issue isn’t one where some great wrong has been done to a group of people. Nations are well within their rights to limit their citizenry to those people who enter the country by lawful means. Period. And–oh, yeah–we’ve gone down the amnesty road once before, and we get no credit for that, either.

The rush to get this done and the shameless-pandering aspect this issue has right now (following on the heels of an election Republicans lost because of minority votes as it does) pretty much ensure an ill-thought-through, financially foolish, Democrat-pleasing nightmare of unintended consequences that will haunt us for decades to come. And that’s being optimistic.

P.S. Why might Democrats be in such a hurry to get amnesty of some sort passed? Hint: 2014. They are terrified of a repeat of 2010 and want to lock up the vote by either a) flooding the voting rolls with newly legal (and grateful) Democrat voters and/or b) having an issue that will drive minorities (and the liberal base) to the polls during a mid-term election to punish Republicans (if nothing satisfactory gets passed).

Tommy, what you have missed is that Hispanics have already gone the way of blacks. Their vote for Reagan in 1984 (two years before the 1986 amnesty) was the high water vote. We passed the amnesty and the percentage of Hispanic Democratic vote soared in 1988 with Michael F#king Ducakis as the Democratic nominee.

The illegals who become citizens as a result of this amnesty will be the same as 80+ percent of the blacks and vote for whoever promises the most “free stuff.”

bw222 on January 28, 2013 at 2:42 PM

No they have not. Not even close.

That dimwit Bush got around 40% in 2004. McCain got 31% and Romney got only 21%. Bush to his credit had a good outreach plan and operation to court Latinos. This was really the case in terms of rural Hispanics and those that converted to protestant/evangelicals (which is a growing number of Latinos who come to the country). Of course the GOP had problems with urban Hispanics, but they have the same problems with anyone urban. They also had problems with Latinos still calling themselves catholic, but many Latinos are leaving the Catholic church, so I don’t think that is a big concern in the future.

Simply said people are not going to vote for you if they think you hate them because of their ethnic background or religion.

The key to winning Hispanics votes is (1) knock off the ethnic “they are just like the Blacks argument”, (2) convert as many of them them as you can to evangelicals. New Latino migrant farm workers are really open to the kind of christian religion evangelicals are pushing. It is tonic to the progressive religion. Of course there are other methods you can use to break up the Latino vote. With about 25% of Latinos marrying someone who is not Latino, most of which are white, the demographics will continue to change to a more conservative bent.

tommy71. No the cat hasn’t got my tongue. I just don’t spend all day on a message board and respond on demand. I think that Bush receiving 40% of the Latino vote had nothing to do with him being a social con. In fact, Catholics are generally uncomfortable with evangelical Protestantism. It is stylistically very different from Catholicism. Ryan and Jindal have the same social con views as a Huckabee, but there is a huge gap in style there.

As for why Bush won.. promising immigration reform was a huge piece of it. As was understanding the culture. McCain lost Latinos because of the financial crisis and Bush’s unpopularity, same reasonhe lost the election. Romney did absolutely no outreach at all. Ryan got shot down on this because “they were going to vote for us anyways.”

They are put into slave homes and work to pay off the cost of the slavery for 20 or more years.

This goes on in our U.S.A. and is know by all in the House and Senate.

There are “sex slave” operations in the fields of America where women from all over the world are in force sex slave operations.

It is not about skin, it is not about race, it is about the rule of law, aginst slavey, (vote or wage) , it is about the Senate, House and the President acting outside the Constitution via the “secret meetings they have been having for 3 or 4 years.

Your distraction that it is race based is pure crap.

But then you could say that about the Mexican Goverments rules on immigration if your care to.

I don’t know the inner workings, but Rubio is a more attractive face for pushing it through than McCain—he’s a;sp younger then all of those guys. He has bio, and they’ll pretend he has Tea Party backing.

For decades politicians have refused to take any action to deal with the flood of illegals across the border (& the serious problem with our National Security) until the point we have now – millions of Illegals – so many to the point where the Liberal argument is ‘Well, you can’t deport all of them so best not to do anything.’

There is so much ‘RED’ (Illegals) ‘on the ledger book’ (in the U.S.) that even GOP members are conceding the best thing to do now is to ‘wipe the books clean of the RED’….grant amnesty across the board.

THE PROBLEM STILL EXISTS HOWEVER: There has been no solution offered to keep more from coming across the border…no solution to the terrorist cells we KNOW are in this country as a result of decades of faioed policy/no real security…no solution that would provide a negative incentive for more Illegals to come here (no driver’s licenses to Illegals, NO govt aid of any type to illegals – even ‘after XXXX date’. It is a reset of the ‘Illegal Immigration Debt Ceiling’….

And the gutless, self/party-serving politicians who have refused to take any action on this problem for decades today announce this as a major victory for the U.S., for the existing Immigration Policy that has existed for decades but never followed/enforce…(It is as if Congress spends its time making new legislation/regulations that it is reponsible for enforcing later but knows NOW they never will….). Our politicians are weak and gutless, refusing/unable to do what is right, to take a stand for nything other than an agenda or money from Special Interests groups… Integrity/Honesty/Loyalty/Patriotism – all for sale in the U.S. in Washington!

Rubio is sounding more and more like a guy just trying to get elected, which is sad because i used to like him.

mexicans who want a free pass for their fellow mexicans who came here illegally will never vote for a conservative, period! remember these people broke our laws to get here, use our public resources and do pay in as much as they get out; and you expect them to vote conservative???

the irony is that once these people become legal, they will be used by the dems to vote out those republicans who voted for this bill. idiots!!!

Fact is, many of these illegals are coming here and having children who are American citizens. Now, if we want to allow the Dems to paint Republicans as racists who hate brown people, we can cede this vote to them in perpetuity just like blacks. And we’ll become a permanent minority party.

If, on the other hand, we want to make a serious play for these votes, we should probably do something along the lines of what Rubio is suggesting.

Frankly, I have no problem with people who want to WORK to make better lives for themselves, whether they come here legally or not. Beats the hell out of the typical freeloading, lazy-ass Obama voter for sure.

Oh…brother. Well maybe we can all just wait until the next time the democrats get the house, senate and white house and all the illegal immigrants in the country can get immediate citizenship without getting to the back of the line, without learning English, without paying back taxes, without paying fines, without more border control, without a better visa system….etc….etc….

I don’t know the inner workings, but Rubio is a more attractive face for pushing it through than McCain—he’s a;sp younger then all of those guys. He has bio, and they’ll pretend he has Tea Party backing.

INC on January 28, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Rubio’s going to be the main face pushing the Rubio 2016 Presidential Campaign Act. Duh.

I will be willing to donate money and time to any primary opponent of any republican who votes for this.

I will not ever again donate money to any incumbent republican or the republican party if this passes.

this is about the stupidist thing I have heard them considering doing, and is a total and complete deal-breaker for me. Despite constant betrayals and let-downs from the GOP, I have been pretty loyal and donated time, money and my vote to the GOP over the years.

If they do this, I honestly see no point in bothering any longer. Any pretense at trying to do what is right by the nation will have been shat upon by the GOP.

And I’m not just bloviating. Adding 11 million new liberal voters will mean conservative principals will never be achieved, that the nation will move further left, and there will be no point in pretending any longer that the GOP cares about anything but keeping power.

At some point, reality needs to set in. For me, this will be it. I will simply give up and concede. If we are going to have a far left socialist type of nation, I’d rather let the dems have it.

Screw you GOP. Period.

And, a question:

It’s not a good idea to have millions of people permanently trapped in an immigration status that keeps them forever at a distance from our society.

Why? How? Aside from asserting it – I have seen no evidence that this status harms the U.S. (except of course for the costs for entitlements, schools, health care, crime, etc. – however those costs are not going to go down by legalizing the illegals, they will instead skyrocket and thus this argument does not work).

This claim by Rubio is akin to “diversity” claims wherein it is claimed that merely having someone of a different color or different ethnicity in your presence at work or school somehow makes your company better or your education better – which is b.s. It is nonsense.

No person has ever made a compelling argument as to why we must legalize low educated, low paid, laborers who came to the U.S. illegally knowing the status they would face. They will not add enough in tax dollars to overcome the costs they generate for local, state and the federal gov’t. In contrast, legalizing them will increase costs as they will all be subject to minimum wage and required payroll taxes.

No rational argument has ever been made as to why we should legalize these people. Saying “because we are a country of immigrants” is not a rational argument. Saying that it is mean to not legalize them since they have been here a long time is not a rational argument. Claiming they will suddenly (against all evidence to the contrary) become conservative and vote GOP is not a rational argument.

There is no logical, rational argument for legalizing these people.

Can a pro-legalization person make such an argument without resorting to “because they live in the shadows” or “our forefathers were immigrants”? If so, I have yet to see it.

Libtards are tolerant and compassionate tof all things, except the following: Black Republicans, Latino Republicans, Christians, religion, God, Israel, Israelis, smokers, whites who have families with more than one child, SUV drivers, gun-owners and everybody that holds a differing viewpoint.

But, hey, “congrats” on winning due to poor families having 8-10 children and living on the dole for support.

sentinelrules on January 28, 2013 at 1:12 PM

You forgot hillbilly women from Alaska who don’t abort their special-needs child.

I think it was the phrase “they breed like rabbits” that caught my eye. Does make you sound a little like you consider Hispanics to be little more than dumb copulating animals.

Really? Because you’re the one whom used the term “anchor babies,” so your opinion seems to be rather retarded.

And for a “elitist,” the term simile seems as if it’s a foreign concept to you.

This libtard, by the was married in the Catholic Church and send his kids to Catjolic schools, one for eight years and on for 12. We’re not pleased with the Pope and his reactionary minions, but but we’re on speaking terms.

“But but,” I don’t care about your craptastic family except pity that one of their parents is a douchebag. Hopefully, they rebelled
against your stupidity.

There we go. Another round of racism. As to your list, disagreeing with someone is not the same as not tolerating them.

It’s funny when Conservatives play the victim card.

urban elitist on January 28, 2013 at 1:30 PM

It’s funny when someone considers themselves elitist, but is actually the polar opposite. US Census states that Latinos have far larger families, but simple math is racist to libtards like yourself.

And we know that liberals don’t have tolerance for others with differing viewpoints. It’s called a double standard.

They’re gonna take your amnesty, Marco… and then they’re gonna vote for the guy who offers them the most “free” stuff. So unless you’re ALSO the guy who’s going to outbid the other guy, you LOSE.

What’s really disappointing about all this is that I thought we’d finally found a guy who could articulate conservative principles, one who could talk about the meaning of freedom and make people understand it. But… hey… I guess that’s what we get when we drop our guard. Just another greasy politician out peddling for votes. The usual Identity Politics.

This libtard, by the was married in the Catholic Church and send his kids to Catjolic schools, one for eight years and on for 12. We’re not pleased with the Pope and his reactionary minions, but but we’re on speaking terms.

“But but,” I don’t care about your craptastic family except pity that one of their parents is a douchebag. Hopefully, they rebelled
against your stupidity.

And of course, he probably fights tooth and nail for the teachers’ unions and for keeping people from being able to do the same as him and send their kids to private school.

Because he is “elite” you see. Like all liberals, he does not want his own family to have to suffer the consequences of the policies he favors.

Amnesty is just another glorified word for justify illegal behavior. When this is all over and done it will mirror the 1986 disaster. Back then Ronald Reagan said it was one of his biggest mistakes, he trusted the Democrats to live up to their word to secure the border and enforcing the laws after he signed the bill.